Posted
by
Soulskillon Friday September 14, 2012 @05:12PM
from the caught-on-tape dept.

SternisheFan sends this excerpt from Wired:
"For the second time this year, self-proclaimed Anonymous spokesman Barrett Brown was raided by the FBI. The latest dramatic incident occurred late Wednesday evening while Brown and another woman identified by some as his girlfriend were participating in an online chat on TinyChat with other individuals. Two minutes into the recorded chat session, loud voices could be heard in the background of Brown's residence in Texas while the woman in the room with him was in front of the computer screen. She quickly closed the computer screen, but the audio continued to capture events in the room as the FBI appeared to strong-arm Brown to put handcuffs on him. Brown could be heard yelling in the background. A spokeswoman in the Dallas County sheriff's office confirmed to Wired that Brown was raided last night and was booked into the county jail around 11 p.m."
(Warning: the video embedded with the article contains mature language.)

In my opinion every individual has a right to defend himself when an intruders (or intruders) suddenly busts down the door and puts you in fear for your life. I would have no problems if a resident shot & killed the intruders.

Depends on the nature of the "arrest"- without a Warrant, they're not operating within their authority. Seriously.

Doesn't matter.

You'll still be ventilated if they even think you look like you're going to resist, whether or not the raid is legal or not. They're trained to treat every raid as if they were going up against hardened, experienced, and well-armed enemies.

And that's what you are at that moment. An enemy to be neutralized and rendered helpless and harmless as swiftly as possible with the least risk to themselves. not the least risk to the people they're charged to protect, themselves.

Whether or not you are guilty of anything isn't their job or worry. They are a paramilitary assault & entry team. They assault and enter like they face at least an equally-armed & trained force at a minimum. Until you are face-down, restrained/cuffed, and have been searched you are potentially a heavily-armed threat.

Just look at how Amish dairy farmers were raided, and Gibson Guitars were raided. Guns drawn, like the Amish or a luthier normally pack an H&K MP5.

Sending in a paramilitary force to arrest some guy for a crime that is of the same degree of violence as stealing a stapler from a workplace really just shows a lack of professionalism and a willingness to waste resources on overkill. I wonder what the real soldiers think of these idiots playing soldiers in such minor situations. What good is a SWAT team if they are diluted so much that their members are unlikely to meet situations where they are actually required? A hundred curb stomp situations is a pointless amount of experience for a group that you want to rely on when there is a real threat of something requiring a paramilitary response.

Sometimes you can be shot even if you attempt to flee. I know of at least one case where police mistakenly knocked down the wrong door when they got the address on the warrant wrong. They shot and killed a young mother when instead of flopping on the floor like any felon would know to do she jumped up to run like anyone who was innocent and couldn't conceive of police breaking their door down would do. Too bad, it was an honest mistake by some half trained cops. I think the lawsuit was expensive for the

Bullshit. Did you even read the page you linked to. Your link points to a page that talks about the stopping of searching of certain people in public, and has nothing to do with the requirement of a warrant to enter a private residence.

Missouri too, provided they do not identify themselves as LEO's prior to kicking in the door.

Even then... anybody can buy blue shirts and badges from a variety of online retailers, and there have, locally, been several incidents in recent years of people impersonating cops so they can rob/rape/whatever.

If I were constantly being harassed and raided by the police, I'd simply cut a 6'x6' hole in my floor just inside the front door and staple a rug across it. Start using the garage door and keep it closed from the inside. Next time they entered without knocking they'd end up in my basement.

If I were constantly being harassed and raided by the police, I'd simply cut a 6'x6' hole in my floor just inside the front door and staple a rug across it. Start using the garage door and keep it closed from the inside. Next time they entered without knocking they'd end up in my basement.

1) How do you plan to get in if it's closed from the inside?

2) In Canada, setting "traps", even in your own home, is a crime in and of itself. This is to protect fire/ambulance as well as police officers that may need to enter, sometimes to save YOUR sorry ass. Does the US not have an equivalent to this law?

Brown's outspoken activities hardly speak of anonymity, which largely precludes him acting on behalf 'Anonymous', one of the major principles of 'Anonymous' is the acts being protested are the sole focus of the protest and are not about promoting the protester. So to publicly claim to be a spokesperson for 'Anonymous' is more about self promotion and has very little to do with 'Anonymous'.

Although it is beginning to sound like another FBI overreach, threatening to destroy someone is acceptable as long no

And if you ever do end up in ANY jail, be respectful to the guards, or they WILL hurt you badly. In the 90's I served 15 days in the county jail in Long Island. A guy who came in was "mouthy" to the guards there, after a couple of days they pulled him out of his cell, which was next to.mine)surrounded him (15guards) while one head guard kicked him mercilessly. Between every kick, the guard yelled, "Who's the big man NOW!! HUH? Who's the big man NOW!" I'll never forget this. Four days later they bring him back to his cell, and he must've gotten their 'message', because he didn't cause any more problems. So, if you're dealing with law enforcement, play it cool, my advice.

Have we stopped being civil? Was this guy a risk of flight? Did he have a history of violence? A friend committed mail fraud, they called him told him there was a warrant out for his arrest. He was asked to turn himself in, he got council they had time to review it. Assuming that everybody is a violet offender that will run is a core issue of our police system these days.

“Any armed official of the U.S. government, particularly the FBI, will be regarded as potential Zeta assassin squads,” he said in the video. “As FBI knows they know that I’m armed and I come from a military family and I was taught to shoot by a Vietnam veteran and I will shoot all of them and kill them if they come and do anything. I have reason to fear for my life.” “Frankly, it was pretty obvious I was going to be dead before I was 40 or so, so I wouldn’t mind going out with two FBI sidearms like a fucking Egyptian pharaoh. Adios.”

It's not clear what the warrant was for, but I sure understand why they arrested him the way they did.

There are two reasons for a no-knock arrest. Either they think the suspect will resist or they thing evidence might be destroyed; in either case surprise and overwhelming force are used whether you approve of it or not.

It's done mostly to intimidate.

You can't fucking tell me a half a pound of weed destroyed down a toilet is worth the violence. (Plus, you'd have to make a bunch of assumptions someone is ready to destroy evidence at a second's notice all the time.)

"If it were a no-knock raid perhaps, but if they announce that they are police, then such action would be inexcusable murder."

BUT -- and these are the relevant criteria here -- "no knock" raids are ONLY supposed to be attempted when (A) there is probable cause, (B) there is a judicial warrant based on that probable cause, and (more to the point) (C) the person involved is suspected to be CURRENTLY armed and a danger to the public. OR, (D), there is a significant chance that evidence will be destroyed before it can be recovered. One of the justifications for allowing "no knock" raids in the first place were when it was suspected th

If it were a no-knock raid perhaps, but if they announce that they are police, then such action would be inexcusable murder.

I agree.
I'm all for justice and for protecting our rights, but police who have legitimate warrants to arrest people shouldn't have to worry that they'll get shot when they announce they're coming in.

Totally.

Of course, if they have a legitimate warrant, there is zero excuse for executing a "no-knock" search unless the individual being served is a known violent/flight risk. Being an attention-hungry diva doesn't quite qualify, IMO.

Really?Maybe they should call ahead and give him a couple weeks to wipe his hard drive?

Say, Barret, we were going to be in the neighborhood next week, how bout we drop by and pick up your computers, Ok? We got a warrant and everything. 10:am sound fine? Good , see you then old boy. On, and you won't erase anything between now and then will you? Goodl. Thought not. Shall we bring you a Latte when we come? Ok, then. See you next week.

You know, I bet that approach would work with drug dealers, bank robbers, and murderers too.Have you thought about running for Sheriff or something? You'd be bound to get elected.

Then in that case there shouldn't be a fricking no knock take down huh? lets face it if someone yell police while blasting down your door either with their feet or a fricking ram do you REALLY think you are gonna hear them over the exploding door?

If you REALLY want to see what the problem is at its core watch "The largest gang in America" on YouTube, No bullshit, nothing made up, just actual footage of cops acting NO DIFFERENT than your average gang bangers. Bashing people's heads who haven't done shit, starting trouble just so they can pound on someone, its completely disgusting and even more so when you realize that the vast majority of cops on that video are STILL ON THE FORCE thus condoning that kind of behavior.

"In other news, the spokesperson for an organization responsible for dozens of high profile electronic attacks, distributing classified data, and hundreds of other felonies was taken into custody today..."

Agree or disagree with Anonymous, it shouldn't be a surprise that he took the ride.

Add to this the allegation that he made public threats against an F.B.I. agent and the agent's family . . .

But everyone here is right . . . the F.B.I. shouldn't have gone all S. S. on this guy. Now, if the agent who was threatened had come alone and blown Brown's brains out I would've found that perfectly acceptable. Of course, that agent would now be in custody facing charges of murder; but I'd like to think that a self-defense plea would work for him there.

"In other news, the spokesperson for an organization responsible for dozens of high profile electronic attacks, distributing classified data, and hundreds of other felonies was taken into custody today..."

Agree or disagree with Anonymous, it shouldn't be a surprise that he took the ride.

Yeah but at this point he cannot be considered as the spokesperson anymore. He just got raided, why would any active hacker or activist trust him now that he has been raided and arrested by the FBI? They can plant bugs in his house, they can force him to cooperate, so it's basically over for him. His days as an online spokesperson/activist are over and he will be lucky if he avoids prison.

Generally, a spokesperson for a group of interest would be approached calmly, not raided (which makes it news).

The spokespeople of multinational crime syndicates tend not to be well-regarded by law enforcement. I know, it's confusing.

Was Barrett armed? Was he dangerous? Was there any reason to believe he was a threat to the officers' personal safety whatsoever? People get taken into custody all the time without being raided. This was an excuse by the police to let out some steam by bashing down the door and busting heads.

Hard drives can be destroyed in seconds. You do have to bust down the doors to get them in time... (though that should be saved for actual criminals, not internet trolls IMO)

Define an "actual criminal"? Would you say people who are peacefully growing plants inside their own house and causing no harm to others are "actual criminals"? Because no-knock warrants are becoming more and more commonplace in the War on (Some) Drugs. How easy do you think it would be to destroy an entire garden full of plants leaving no trace of evidence? How much of an effect do you think the police announcing their presence beforehand would have on that?

nd when you bust down doors you have to have guns because you don't know if the people inside have them and will react.

Oh horseshit, have you been watching CSI or something? Short of sticking explosive to the things ANY software based tool is gonna take a SERIOUSLY long time to even do a single pass and simply pulling the plug would kill that shit quick.

Now one could argue that MAYBE, just maybe, he had something like truecrypt on the drive but if that was the case simply popping the power switch with his foot would be enough to unmount the drive so kicking in the door wouldn't help shit anyway and a better strategy would be to simply grab this guy on the way to his car where he don't know shit is going on or bug his PC when he isn't at home.

Nope the whole point of shit like this is INTIMIDATION, its to make YOU scared to speak up against them. Look at this nice little Jewish girl [youtube.com] that gets to be hassled and intimidated every time she flies anywhere by being put on the watchlist, her crime? Speaking about your constitutional rights.

I'm sorry but LEOs aren't the good guys anymore, they are pitbulls used by the state to keep the peasants scared of speaking up or talking back.

All I'm saying is that IF someone wants to be sure they can grab your hard drive without you destroying it, they have to do it FAST.

Which is what's WRONG with these police powers, they use this fact to justify busting in with guns... because they have a legitimate reason to IF we grant that they should have the right to seize hard drives in the first place in cases like this. I disagree with this, but the fact remains.

Grab him while he's at work, grab him when he is walking to his car, five will get you ten that like most people on this planet he is predictable as all hell.

And I'm sorry but your "scenario" is beyond batshit. Show me ONE, just one mind you, arrest the FBI has EVER made where anybody did anything that completely batshit. I have a friend that works at the state crime lab, the guys they nab are looking at 60+ years,

Generally, a spokesperson for a group of interest would be approached calmly, not raided (which makes it news).

The spokespeople of multinational crime syndicates tend not to be well-regarded by law enforcement. I know, it's confusing.

Was Barrett armed? Was he dangerous? Was there any reason to believe he was a threat to the officers' personal safety whatsoever? People get taken into custody all the time without being raided. This was an excuse by the police to let out some steam by bashing down the door and busting heads.

How the fuck is this insightful? FTFA, in Barrett Brown's own words:

"It’s toward the end of the video that Brown makes his threat: “Robert Smith’s life is over. So when I say life is over, I don’t say I’m going to kill him. But I’m going to ruin his life and look into his [expletive] kids because Aaron Barr did the same thing and he didn’t get raided for it. How do you like them apples?”

Barr is the former HBGary Federal CEO whose email was hacked by Anonymous in February.

He goes on: “Any armed officials of the U.S. government, particularly the FBI, will be regarded as potential Zeta assassin squads and they know that I’m armed and I will shoot all of them and kill them if they come and do anything because they are engaged in a criminal conspiracy and I have reason to fear for my life, not just from the zetas but from the U.S. government.”"

Hmm. Publicly threatening to shoot anyone that approaches him that's wearing a police uniform. Gee, I don't know why they arrested him with a SWAT team.

The spokespeople of multinational crime syndicates tend not to be well-regarded by law enforcement. I know, it's confusing.

Ah, you are one of "those" people
As long as the person in question is likely/potentially an asshole, he deserves everything he gets, right? You don't even wonder if there had been a valid (i.e. legal) reason to arrest him.

Next step would be to arrest and harass any lawyer that will dare to represent that guy. I mean, the guy's got some bad connections, so anyone working for him is probably fair game too.

Yes, I'm one of those people that believe in doing everything by the book and within the law first, and only expanding outside those restrictions when all other avenues of recourse have failed. It's called being socially responsible, a concept you are apparently unfamiliar with.

or to release sensitive data. and if he's spokespersoning for Anonymous, he's an accessory at the least. they could also go RICO (Racketeer Influenced Corrupt Organization) on Anonymous, it's a great little Swiss Army Lawbook for repeat offenders. so it's definitely FBI material, and Brown might well find himself without much of a legal defense.

How can one be a "spokesman" for an "organization" that doesn't actually...you know... exist?

You mean like the Mafia or the Zetas? I think, based on past actions, anyone can assume they exist. What that means is up to interpretation. However, you don't need a corporate head office to be considered an organization. The prosecutor needs only to convince a jury of conspiracy, or obstruction, these days.

On topic, I really wonder why they can't just follow him to the Starbucks he goes to every morning and arrest him there (I would guess they've been collating his daily routine for weeks before this

Barrett Brown is not Anonymous. Most of the Anons I know worth their salt think of him as a fraud. This is the problem of a leaderless, hierarchyless political movement: anyone can claim affiliation. All Barrett did was claim to orchestrate some invisible campaign against Mexican drug gangs, of which no evidence was ever actually presented, and idiot reporters lined up to print his lies verbatim.

Barrett Brown claimed affiliation with Encyclopedia Dramatica, another Internet community, on Twitter recently. Current and former ED admins lined up to denounce him as never being known there.

Barrett Brown is a liar and a fraud. His days are up now that he's finally committed the crime of threatening an FBI agent. There's no way he's getting bail.

So he's an attention whore. That's all fine and dandy, but the last time I checked the FBI had better things to do. You just said it yourself: There's no evidence at all that he had anything to do with anonymous, its activities, or any of its affiliated groups, everything about the guy can be laid at the feet of the media, who are more than happy to sensationalize lies. If the layman on the internet knows that, the FBI knows that. So why are they raiding his house? What's there to gain? Well, it sends a strong message. It scares people. Oh right, that's what the FBI is for these days.
Barrett Brown's lack of affiliation with anonymous isn't what makes this newsworthy, it's that despite knowing that, the FBI were more than happy to ruin him in order to send a message.

I posted a factual reply. The government, both political parties, and political activists and groups/organizations across the spectrum use the tactics Barrett described against their opponents and enemies. You can't deny that's true. We hear the stories in the news almost daily.

Many political "opposition research" teams as well as political organizations and groups attack enemies the way Barrett describes. Heck, the government uses such tactics when they deem it to their advantage. Look what kinds of tactics were employed against Sarah Palin, for example. Teams of investigators and lawyers flown into AK, pouring over every detail they could dig up to destroy her. This isn't limited to one political party or ideology either.

Are you saying they should be arrested?

Can you or are you willing to answer honestly without attempting to distract from the question I asked, as you've been doing so far?

i'm a descendent of a revolutionary war soldier. don't lecture me about thomas jefferson

you know nothing about the principles of the founding fathers. no one familiar with their wisdom would reach for violence so quickly. you rise to arms carefully, wisely. i believe you call that sort of wisdom "timidity." you don't look forward to violence and revolution and fantasize about its application with relish, like you obviously do. your thinking and your "solutions" are WORSE than the abuses you see in our gover

Oh, and if you're going to accuse me of jumping headlong to violence, maybe you should have also read my post that followed the one you quoted where I said:

Nobody needs to get violent. There still is this thing called a ballot box. Anyone who has voted for an incumbent official no matter where or when is part of the problem. Don't hang the unresponsive officials, but just vote them out and let them get a real job in the private economy, if they can find one.

I agree that if it is possible to vote them out without resorting to violence, that's the best option.

Problem is, the officials understand this as well and have used their powers of office to protect themselves through gerrymandering, vote tabulation fraud, and bused-in voters etc to undermine and negate the people's ability to remove them from office in many cases.

Coupled with a judiciary that is unable and/or unwilling to prosecute these officials and their lackeys even when confronted with video evidence (if it hasn't been confiscated and destroyed), that accounts for soap, ballot, and jury boxes.

That leaves the people with only one box left. And they're working on removing that option as quickly as they can.

And I'd likely agree. It doesn't make what he said OR what he said he'd do illegal though. I guess he should have played it safe and called for bombs to be tossed through the windows of "cracka-baby" nurseries, or put out a cash bounty dead-or-alive like the NBPP has done. We know that must be OK, otherwise they would have been arreste

Whats the message they are sending though? If I were a legit member of anonymous, knowing that Brown was not a member - what am I suppose to take from this? That the FBI has no idea who they really are (good thing for anonymous), that they are the bad guys (the point anonymous exists) and will destroy ones life on a whim (already knows this)? From the sounds of it, my reaction would be the same that was in the video - LOL, OMG, that sux! and continue chatting.

So he's an attention whore. That's all fine and dandy, but the last time I checked the FBI had better things to do. You just said it yourself: There's no evidence at all that he had anything to do with anonymous, its activities, or any of its affiliated groups, everything about the guy can be laid at the feet of the media, who are more than happy to sensationalize lies. If the layman on the internet knows that, the FBI knows that. So why are they raiding his house? What's there to gain? Well, it sends a strong message. It scares people. Oh right, that's what the FBI is for these days.

Barrett Brown's lack of affiliation with anonymous isn't what makes this newsworthy, it's that despite knowing that, the FBI were more than happy to ruin him in order to send a message.

Do you think that matters? If the FBI is at war with Anonymous they can make use of Mr. Brown.

Barrett Brown is not Anonymous. Most of the Anons I know worth their salt think of him as a fraud. This is the problem of a leaderless, hierarchyless political movement: anyone can claim affiliation. All Barrett did was claim to orchestrate some invisible campaign against Mexican drug gangs, of which no evidence was ever actually presented, and idiot reporters lined up to print his lies verbatim.

Barrett Brown claimed affiliation with Encyclopedia Dramatica, another Internet community, on Twitter recently. Current and former ED admins lined up to denounce him as never being known there.

Barrett Brown is a liar and a fraud. His days are up now that he's finally committed the crime of threatening an FBI agent. There's no way he's getting bail.

What I mean is he will never again be considered a part of any serious activist movement. Once they know he got raided by the FBI they know he's the new FBI bitch. Many people suspected that Sabu was the FBI bitch after he got raided but somehow people still trusted him and look what happened there?

If an activist gets raided by the FBI they need to find a new profession because their activism days are over. They can look forward to lifetime surveillance from that point on and pressure potentially for 10 or

I think there's a transcript on pastebin if you look through the article. Not sure I'm convinced that it caught all of those words though. They sound pretty unintelligible to me.
Moreover, how did they know he was getting handcuffed? For all we know, he may have just seen a light shining in his window and he started having a seizure and began screaming.

The article does link to the site (pastebin?) where it says an audio is. If someone can post a link to it... I watched some of the video, this guy is not "operating on all cylinders", as they say. Right off he states he been off heroin for over a year. Maybe he is, who the f knows for sure. He sure doesn't act sober to me.

Not that I'm saying that adults don't often talk like that... I know many that do. But in my own experience, it really seems to me that such offensive language is far more frequently used by younger people than by older.

It reminds me of how some kids will sometimes start smoking because they think it's "grown-up", whereas almost everybody who smokes these days actually started before they even turned 18.

You got modded redundant, it should be insightful. He isn't 'mature'. He stopped growing emotionally the day he started abusing drugs, and that's the reason he talks like the kids you know, 'cause inside, he's still a little boy. A lot of people who look old enough to be called adult really still think like children. You made a good observation there, imo.

Submitter here. I'd like to express my gratitude here, to "Soulskill", and all the other/. editorial staff. I've had a few of my submissions 'cleaned up', and made better by their work. (See, I haven't yet figured out how to embed links professionally here.) They make my submissions far more professional looking, and add their own expert knowledge to them. This site has 'schooled' me greatly over the last few years. So, "KUDOS" to all the people who make this such a great site to visit. S.F.:-)

You are not in the right when you threaten to somehow commit violence on another person. It's the law, and it's a damn good law. Brown, whose brain appears to not have yet recovered completely from his drug using days, crossed that line. He brought this attention on himself. He's not a hero, he's not rational, he acts pretty deranged. What he really is is another good example to young people why they should not allow themselves to get involved with opiate consumption of any sort, heroin or it's legal prescription pill form. If you're hooked on it now seek help and treatment, before you end up like this poor tortured soul. Heroin addiction is not cool, and it causes you to make some real bad life decisions. Like this guy has. Life's 'heros' are, imho, the people who live within the law, all other's are just 'posers'.

FTFY. When I was growing up, the mantra was, "Don't trust anyone over thirty." I was nowhere near thirty, yet still I thought that was one of the stupidest things I'd ever heard. Charles Manson was ca. 34 when Sharon Tate was murdered. Alexander the Great was ca. 33 when he died. Physical age has nothing to do with pretty near everything.

Maturity is highly overrated.

You must mean that in a way that I don't recognize. Marie Curie was ca. 67 when she died.

Didn't he threaten the FBI the other day to reveal all kinds of information unless he got his laptops back from the FBI taken in the first raids? There were two videos on his Youtube channel (can't check now).